Thorium and Aviation

[Colin S]

Not X-Plane, but aviation, related:

 

I've been reading about the Thorium engine concept: using high-energy Thorium to produce heat, making steam, and running a turbine. I personally think it's brilliant: With a bit more research, I found out that Thorium is easier to obtain than Plutonium or Uranium, and is not radioactive enough to cause any harm to humans. Although extended exposure is linked to health issues, it is generally safe, probably safer than breathing in gasoline fumes every day at the pump.

 

Apparently, the cars would only have to be refuelled once every eighty to one hundred years.

 

Here's my musing: What if we could apply this to aircraft engines? Imagine being able to land and take off without fuelling up, especially in a huge plane like an A380 or a B747. Of course, these wouldn't be able to run for eighty years on fuel, probably only a couple of flights considering the volume of fuel currently consumed by aircraft, but it would open a new possibility in the world that vanished with rising fuel prices:

 

Supersonic air travel. Fuel costs too much. Also, having less weight on board the planes in fuel, the airlines could fit more cargo onboard, allow for heavier luggage (although we all know that would never happen without extra fees), and that pesky carbon tax would disappear off the ticket price. 

 

Currently the technology isn't efficient enough to be light enough to power a plane, but it's almost there. 

[eaglewing7]

Odds are, it will never happen, because of the oil companies, OPEC, etc.

 

They already killed off the first mass produced electric car, so I wouldn't put it past them to kill something like this off.  But, I have a feeling that the price would be pretty prohibitive anyway.

[Michael_Chang]

I disagree eaglewing, given the performance of cars like the Tesla model S, I think that the use of non-electric, gas-free modes of transport could become a reality in the near future, and by near, i mean when I'm in a wheel chair... Naturally it would be met with a lot of resistance from Oil producers, but I think it's a doable build, assuming the tech is tested appropriately first.

[eaglewing7]

I disagree eaglewing, given the performance of cars like the Tesla model S, I think that the use of non-electric, gas-free modes of transport could become a reality in the near future, and by near, i mean when I'm in a wheel chair... Naturally it would be met with a lot of resistance from Oil producers, but I think it's a doable build, assuming the tech is tested appropriately first.

You mean that car that spontaneously combusts, whipping the general public into a panic…  Or at least thats what the US media leads you to believe...

 

Obviously hybrid/electric and straight electric cars are the way of the future, but even in this day and age where hybrids are accepted widely, they do not have a huge market presence overall.  A Prius C costs around $21,000 base, but if you get a bottom end gas powered car, you can be in as low as $14,000.  People are cheap, hell, how else can the "Big Three" still sell garbage vehicles?

 

As for allowing, what the public will be lead to believe, is a glorified nuclear reactor on wheels, I doubt it will ever become accepted, let alone anything more than a really expensive prototype.  Sort of along the same lines of the revolutionary aviation engine, designed by Reaction Engines for the "Skylon" aircraft.

[Nicola_M]

I agree with eaglewing; there's a big difference between a hybrid (which is already overpriced for what it is) and a fully self-sufficient sustainable power source unit which, because it won't generate a regular (filling-up) income will be sold at a hugely overpriced amount - like the Prius analogy above.

 

There's also the safety aspect.  A fuel that "may" be reasonably safe to humans (when in its fuel tank / useage environment) is also a lot different to when it's been scattered across ten miles as the result of an aviation accident.

I'm mindful of how red-tape led Europe is, but the US is no less bureaucratic.  I'm constantly reminded of how many of (our) cars are still banned from use in the US because they have the wrong fenders (old Land Rovers eg).

 

So, as for a sustainable fuel-sourced aircraft ever going to market, I doubt it'll ever happen.  Too much revenue to lose, and too much red tape.

But I like the idea.

 

The great Manfred von Richthofen, in his 1917 autobiography, stated that one day he saw that we would strap an aircraft to ourselves like a pair of overalls. 

That day's coming.  I just wish I was here to see it.

[Andyrooc]

Of course there's a small matter of steam. You need a lot of water. And it's quite a bit heavier than avgas. And it tends to freeze under zero degrees C.

[ptru]

To eaglewing and nicola: Guys are you from automotive industry? Have you ever discussed this with guys in the know? Based on your post I do not thing so.

[Nicola_M]

ptru,

Not getting into an argument, so my involvement in this thread ends here.

 

But if you know anything better about why we haven't got / won't have sustainable-powered cars and planes then please post it up.

 

In the meantime, I stick with mine- and eaglewing's opines; that even if the technology existed for a car or plane that never needed refuelling, it would be so bloody expensive that few could afford it. Someone would want their money for the lost fuel revenue that a lifetime of petrol/gasoline currently generates.

And red tape would tie it up so tight it'd never leave the ground anyway.

 

And then you have the safety aspect.  I'm perfectly sure a nuclear cell will one day be small enough to power a plane.

But it'll be grounded permanently.  Why?  Nuclear powered car accident.  Terrorist with a nuclear powered plane.

That's why.

While I may not respond, I'll gladly read your reply.

[Nicola_M]

eaglewing,

It's funny you mentioned the Tesla S fiasco - Elon Musk has today been appointed the UK's sustainable fuel advisor to the government.

 

That's about as logical as asking Wile E Coyote to be the official advisor on catching RoadRunners.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Nicola_M

[eaglewing7]

Nuclear power is currently under fire, especially with the Fukushima meltdowns, and that whole fiasco.  Of course, nuclear power is also feared, and quite rightly if I may say so, after incidents like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, etc.

 

Currently, the main uses of nuclear power for propulsion is a purely military exercise, one that has not been without major incidents and accidents as well.  Frankly, I hope that the general population is never allowed to handle or deal with nuclear energy or propulsion, because people are just plain stupid.

 

As for sustainable energy solutions, currently there is solar, wave action, hydro electric, and wind energy.  Obviously solar and wind power are two forms that can vary dramatically in output due to weather conditions.  Waves, are generally more consistent, allowing for more steady energy output.  Hydro electric is a great method, but, it is ugly, and causes massive scars on the landscape.  

 

I think for the time being, the best solution for the automotive market is the move towards hybrid/electric vehicles.  I am the proud owner of a 2013 Toyota Prius C, and I certainly feel that it is a great car, and is a move in the right direction for vehicles.  But, at the same time, I am more than aware of the fact that purely electric vehicles have a lot of ground to gain in the market (the first mass produced electric car was killed off by big oil), and currently Tesla is running into issues with fires, and of course there is the price of a Tesla, which makes it difficult to own for most people.

 

As for aviation, I do not see any vast changes coming in the next few years.  The push to kill AvGas waxes and wanes, and from time to time there is another big push to kill it, but so far no real viable alternatives exist, or have been studied.  Kerosene and JetA/A-1/B, et el, are not exactly clean fuels in themselves, but are apparently looked upon more kindly than leaded fuels, so there is some irony in this as well...

 

I have a feeling that change will only come when the oil wells start drying up, the barrels are empty, and world wide, fuel prices are on par with current European prices (most Canadian's pay around $1.00 - $1.50 a litre, so there is plenty room there).  Of course, yet again, humanity will be reacting to a crisis scenario, rather than being proactive. 

[Nicola_M]

Viz the aviation greenery side, I'm sure I've read somewhere that one airline at least is using biofuels.  Correction, found lots already are, which could be the future:... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_biofuel

 

I just find it ironic that a well-and-truly barbecued Tesla S is probably more toxic to the environment than a normal car it's meant to be greener than.

[eaglewing7]

Biofuels are certainly a jet fuel alternative.  On the other hand, a truly viable alternative for avgas has yet to be found, especially one that will be useable in high power and compression engines, which the tetraethyl lead works great in.

 

As for a burning car, any petroleum based products will burn in a truly dirty manner, but the rechargeable batteries in any hybrid will do a real number on the environment, for sure.  

[Andyrooc]

... Hydro electric is a great method, but, it is ugly, and causes massive scars on the landscape.  . ...

Ugly? Scars? Not normally. Lakes are usually quite beautiful. Of course, there are bound to be some, like China's massive 3 rivers dam, but they are only inconvenient to humans for a short time, and to animals less time, and to fish...not at all

[eaglewing7]

Certainly lakes can be quite majestic and beautiful.  But, if you consider what was previously there before that valley was flooded, a lot of diversity was likely lost.

 

Case in point would be Williston Lake, created when the W.A.C Bennett dam was built.  People had to be relocated, habitat was lost, etc.

 

The only thing truly worse than a hydro lake, is a run of river project.  These often destroy perfectly healthy rivers due to fluctuations in river levels.

 

Hydro is a great source of power, but causes some significant destruction in the beginning.

[Andyrooc]

See, it depends what you call 'destruction'. Replacing one resplendent nature with another doesn't seem that bad to me. Certainly not destruction. . True you need a big chunk of concrete, but there's no radioactivity, no smoke, no mining, no oil, just somewhere to sail your boat

 

The problem with electric vehicles is, are you simply moving the source of pollution from one place to another? If your power was from a coal or oil powered station, have you done anything to improve pollution? So, while you may not want a car scooting about with a nuclear power plant in it, if it was powered by electricity from a nuclear power plant - not so bad.

 

Getting a plane to run on hydro power? That'd be a neat trick!